It seems the dream of a PFAS-free America will wait out another couple of years before becoming a reality. Back in 2020, Congress issued a deadline of October 1, 2024, to discontinue PFAS across the U.S. However, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has recently reported significant challenges slowing the transition. They are seeking a waiver through October 1, 2026.
As the principal component of AFFF foams, PFAS has long been the choice of defense against liquid-based fires. Although its efficacy is unquestionable, PFAS poses a significant threat to health. From weakened immunity to kidney and testicular cancers, the odds are many.
Several medical studies have confirmed the ill effects of PFAS exposure, especially for those who work with AFFF foams first-hand, like firefighters. Today, things have turned worse with PFAS contaminating the soil and groundwater.
Considering the ubiquitous danger, extending the PFAS ban will only add to the dismay. The “forever chemical” challenge is now a test case for the industry, the Pentagon, and environmental activists. It’s about time they work in synergy to free the nation from its biggest chemical scourge. Here’s how things are cooking up.
Footing the Bill for PFAS Ban-A Problem Less Anticipated
A stingy expenditure is likely central to the DOD’s dilatory approach to the PFAS ban. The DOD’s fiscal year 2024 budget stands at a whopping $841.4 billion. Also, as a part of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, $10 billion in grants were allotted for “addressing emerging contaminants, including PFAS.”
However, the transition cost is now estimated to exceed $2.1 billion. So, the DOD needs at least twice the amount that’s currently being spent on the “forever chemicals” cleanup. Other roadblocks include a lack of drop-in replacement and untrained firefighters using fluorine-free foams.
The majority of military bases are already switching to PFAS-free formulations. But things are easier said than done. While AFFF foams have been crossed off the list for training exercises, they’re still being used during emergencies.
Besides, one can’t ignore the risk of accidental spilling of existing AFFF. One such glaring incident took place at the Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine. The PFAS spill was reportedly over 50,000 gallons.
Fighting It Out in the Court
PFAS contamination and slow clean-up are already legacy problems in America. Over the last few years, prominent American states, including New York and Washington, have filed lawsuits seeking adequate remediation. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina.
Take 3M and their historic $10 billion lawsuit settlement, for instance. The PFAS manufacturing giant reportedly agreed to pay 300 plaintiff communities for PFAS-contaminated water cleanup. DuPont followed suit with a settlement of $1.18 billion.
20,000 firemen, including those retired and on active duty across the U.S., were among the plaintiffs. Many were diagnosed with cancer of some form, which they believe was due to their longtime exposure to AFFF foam. While cases vary, the claims can’t be summarily rejected.
Earlier in 2023, the National Cancer Institute upgraded PFAS to a human carcinogen. New studies also show a strong link between AFFF foam cancer (predominantly testicular) and prolonged exposure to PFAS.
Besides kidney and testicular cancer, exposure to AFFF foam is also linked to other conditions like ulcerative colitis, high blood cholesterol, and hyperthyroidism. Notably, these conditions can emerge at any time within a few years of first AFFF exposure. In some cases, people start exhibiting the symptoms after five or even fifteen years.
Nevertheless, the current state of affairs with the Pentagon in the picture is a lot different. Simply put, suing the government for negligence isn’t as easy as suing a private company. Yet, there’s no stopping several potential plaintiffs with valid reasons to move the court.
According to TorHoerman Law, “anything and everything” that clearly documents one’s exposure to PFAS can be presented as personal injury in court. Examples of admissible evidence for AFFF lawsuits include:
- Medical records suggesting cancer diagnosis
- Employment record showing a history of AFFF exposure
- Any personal witness and testimony
But Houston, We Have a Bigger Problem!
Now that people realize the perils of PFAS, many U.S. states are adopting stringent policies to limit AFFF usage. Ohio is the first state to have committed to destroying all existing AFFF. Switching to fluorine-free formulations for fighting fires has also been a wise decision.
However, the elephant in the room is the firefighting gear itself. A recent research study by NIST has pinned down the prevalence of PFAS within the three-layer protective suit. That means anyone putting the gear on is wrapping themselves in carcinogens every day.
Sadly, there’s no easy fix, chiefly because of the existing NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) standard, which can only be achieved using a PFAS-infused material.
Plus, replacing firefighting gear is always an expensive proposition. While a PFAS-free outer layer could be a possibility, one will still need at least a single layer of PFAS to repel fire. Until the NFPA standards are revised, nothing fruitful can happen on that front.
